Good proposed schedule.

Broad criteria		Unsatisfactory	Satisfactory- Good
Business report: style, fluency, persuasive	Max Marks = 1	Max Marks = 2
language with assurance and precision in the	Lacked clarity. Spelling and	Some clarity evident, however
business report.		grammatical errors evident	work would benefit from closer
		throughout. Work would benefit	attention to expression and
		from proof reading. Submission	grammar. Submission attempts to
		does not apply a business report	apply a business report structure to
		structure to its presentation.	its presentation but areas for
Report items 1-4: Develop and provide an	Max Marks = 5	Max Marks = 7
introduction to the plan by explaining its	Knowledge of principles and	Demonstrates some knowledge of
purpose and importance. The risk appetite and	concepts of risk management	principles and concepts of risk
risk tolerance for the company; Create an	insufficient to communicate	management and is able to
outline for the completed risk management	intelligently about the topic.	communicate this. May lack some
plan; Define the scope and boundaries of the	Lacks clarity. Most responses	clarity. Most responses were
plan; Develop a proposed schedule for the risk	were very general with minimal	general with some understanding
management planning process.		or no little understanding of risk	of risk appetite and risk tolerance.
		appetite and risk tolerance.	Scope, boundaries complete but
		Scope, boundaries is	lacks discussing evidence of overall
		disorganized, incomplete, or	risk management assessment.
		lacks in evidence of overall risk
		management assessment.
Report items 5-6: Identify the key roles and	Max Marks = 5	Max Marks = 7
responsibilities of individuals and departments	Knowledge of roles and	Demonstrates some knowledge of
within the organization as they pertain to risk	responsibilities with respect to	roles and responsibilities and is
assessment; Develop a proposed schedule for	risk assessment insufficient or	able to communicate this. Lacks
the RA process.		weakly communicated. Overall	some clarity in defining roles.
		lacks clarity. Most responses	Response to schedule for RA
		were very general with minimal	process may be missing some
		or no little understanding of how	points..
		to run RA process.
Report items 7-8: Carefully audit the case,	Max Marks = 5	Max Marks = 7
undertake an inventory and identify	Knowledge of principles and	Demonstrates ability to synthesis
information assets that includes both,	concepts insufficient to	and apply core concepts and
Cornersea’s most significant business	communicate intelligently about	principles. Addresses most of
information, and the information systems	the topic. Lacks clarity. Most	requirements and provides some
that must be accounted for in any approach	responses were very general	examples, demonstrating analysis
to risk management. Identifies information	with minimal or no examples	and organisation of assets, threats
assets and systems of organisation most at	relating back to the case assets,	and vulnerabilities with good case
risk; Identifies and provides an analysis of	threats and vulnerabilities.	context presented.
the threats and vulnerabilities that pose the	Analysis is disorganized,
greatest concern. (Identify 6 top risks)	incomplete, or lacking in
		evidence of asset, threat and
		vulnerability assessment.
Report items 9-10: Presents likelihood and	Max Marks = 5	Max Marks = 7
impact analyses for the threats and	Understanding of likelihood and	Demonstrates evidence of having
vulnerabilities identified. Prioritises risks and	impact analyses is not	understood core concepts and
presents a risk assessment table	demonstrated. Lack of	principles for likelihood, impact
		understanding of what should be	analyses and approaches to
		contained in a risk assessment	assessment. Core materials are
		table and no other substantial	understood and capacity to
		approach to evaluate or	synthesise is shown but report does
		prioritise the material value of	not extend itself to a clear
		assets or the effect of threats or	demonstration of mastery of all
		vulnerabilities is shown.	important concepts.
Referencing and use of guidelines, standards,	Max Marks = 1	Max Marks = 2
frameworks and additional readings:	Either did not provide an	Provided a minimum of references
Demonstrated rigor of use of resources with	adequate list of references OR	from credible sources standards,
supporting references		included a bibliography instead	guidelines, frameworks Created a
& adherence to Harvard		i.e. not all references were cited	reference list but with significant
Guidelines		in the body of the report or vice	errors/omissions. Did not strictly
		versa. Demonstrates very little	adhere to Harvard guidelines.
		evidence of having read core	Provides some evidence of working
		materials. Minimal or no	with sources but could improve
		evidence of research to support	analysis of sources.
		responses.

Additional feedback comments:

Very Good

Max Marks = 2.5

Good writing style. Further development of expression and clarity will enhance the work. Additional focus is needed on the precision of your communication. Submission applies most elements

Max Marks = 9

Demonstrates sound knowledge of principles and concepts of risk management and is able to articulate this. Most responses were good with a good understanding of risk appetite and risk tolerance. Scope, boundaries complete but may lack some clarity in discussing risk management assessment.

Max Marks = 9

Demonstrates good understanding of the roles and responsibilities within organization and is able to articulate this. Most responses show a good understanding of how to conduct the risk assessment and has provided a relatively complete schedule.

Max Marks = 9

Shows sound knowledge of relevant principles and concepts. Additional focus needed on precision of assessment of assets, threats and vulnerabilities because some key elements that needed to be covered are missing. Case evidence is present but could be extended/ improved.

Max Marks = 9

Sound knowledge of principles and concepts. ideas are included in the work in an appropriate manner. Demonstrates thorough understanding of standards, guidelines and frameworks for likelihood, impact analyses and risk assessment, evidence of some critical thinking shown.

Max Marks = 2.5

Provides a good body of references and is working effectively with a minimum of credible sources, standards, guidelines, frameworks. Reasonably structured reference list. May not strictly adhere to Harvard guidelines but good use of references in report.

Excellent

Max Marks = 4

Excellent writing style

demonstrating precision in the

clear use of language and

expression. Submission has applied

almost all elements of a business

report structure thoughtfully and

Max Marks = 12

Evidence of excellent

understanding of risk management

processes, principles and concepts.

Excellent understanding of risk

appetite and risk tolerance with

respect to case study. Scope,

boundaries complete and clearly

discussed with respect to risk

management assessment.

Max Marks = 12

Evidence of excellent

understanding of risk assessment

process, roles and responsibilities

with the context of risk

management and specific to this

case study. Good proposed

schedule.

Max Marks = 12

Evidence of an exceptionally high

standard of work demonstrating

understanding, interpretation and

application of unit concepts and

principles. Shows understanding of

integral contexts & relationships

between assets, threats &

vulnerabilities and the case. Has

identified limitations ,

assumptions, challenges for the

analysis. Demonstrates evaluation

& critical thinking.

Max Marks = 11

Demonstrates breadth and depth

of understanding, shows insights

and awareness of many deeper

more subtle aspects of the topic

and, as result, integrates

standards, guidelines and

frameworks for likelihood, impact

analyses and risk assessment

extremely well. Expand on topics/

issues in the broader evaluative

context.

Max Marks = 4

Provides good integrated use of

multiple credible sources (two or

more ) standards, guidelines,

frameworks brought together

effectively. Excellent work with

reference list clearly demonstrated.

Adherence to Harvard guidelines.

Demonstrates a breadth and depth

of study and preparation in well

chosen sources and their use.

Original Score out of 55	0
Score out of 25	0
Late deduction (# of days) =	0
Final Mark (including deductions)	0.0